Objections to Torah Observance: "Jesus fulfilled the Law"

Matthew 5.17 says:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. [1]

Often this is used as a rationale for no longer observing the biblical laws.

However the Word Biblical Commentary has the following to say about this verse:

The precise meaning of πληρῶσαι, "to fulfill," is a difficult question that has produced much debate. The verb means literally "to fill to the full" (from Aramaic מלא, mĕlā˒ , "fulfill," rather than קוּם, qûm , "establish," which is never translated by πληροῦν in the LXX). From this basic meaning comes such derivative meanings as "accomplish," "complete," "bring to its end," "finish." "Fulfill" here hardly means "to do," although Jesus in his conduct is faithful to the true meaning of the Torah. "Complete" is congruent with the stress on fulfillment in and through Jesus but wrongly connotes that Jesus has come simply to add something to the law. The meaning in this instance cannot be determined by word study alone but must be established from the context and in particular must be consonant with the statement of v 18.

The options may be simplified into the following: (1) to do or obey the commandments of the OT (Luz, Bruner, Zahn, Schlatter, Schniewind); (2) a reference to Jesus' life and/or the accomplishment of the salvific acts of Jesus' death and resurrection ("fulfillment of prophecy"; Meier, 46; idem, Law, 76; Ljungman, 60; Guelich, Sermon, 142; Gundry; Carson); (3) teaching the law in such a way as to (a) "establish" or "uphold" the law (Wenham, Themelios 4 [1979] 93; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 56-66; Daube, Rabbinic, 60), (b) add to and thus "complete" the law (Jeremias, Theology, 83-4), or (c) bring out the intended meaning of the law through definitive interpretation (with some differences: Davies-Allison; Broer, Freiheit, 34; Moo, JSNT 20 [1984] 3-49; T. W. Manson, Sayings, 153; Allen; McNeile; Green). A major decision is thus whether the verb refers to the deeds of Jesus or to the teaching of Jesus, although some scholars want to find both (e.g., Banks, JBL 93 [1974] 231; Sand, Gesetz, 186; cf. Moo, JSNT 20 [1984] 25; Carson). The first option is unsatisfactory because the word πληροῦν , "to fulfill," is never used in Matthew to describe obedience to the law, it misses the nuance of fulfillment that is associated with the word in Matthew, and it is not at all appropriate to the context, vv 21-48, which refer to Jesus' teaching. The second option is again unrelated to the context, where the deeds of Jesus are not in view, and in some forms presupposes a questionable exegesis of v 18 (see below). The third option is the most appropriate, not in the sense of simply establishing the law as is, nor of supplementing it, but in the sense of bringing it to its intended meaning in connection with the messianic fulfillment (together with πληροῦν, note "the law and the prophets") brought by Jesus. This interpretation has the advantage of fitting the context well, of maintaining the commitment to the law reflected in v 18, and at the same time of affirming the new definition that comes with fulfillment. In Matthew's view, the teaching of Jesus by definition amounts to the true meaning of the Torah and is hence paradoxically an affirmation of Jesus' loyalty to the OT.

Since in 5:21-48 Jesus defines righteousness by expounding the true meaning of the law as opposed to wrong or shallow understandings, it is best to understand πληρῶσαι here as "fulfill" in the sense of "bring to its intended meaning"-that is, to present a definitive interpretation of the law, something now possible because of the presence of the Messiah and his kingdom. Far from destroying the law, Jesus' teachings-despite their occasionally strange sound-penetrate to the divinely intended (i.e., the teleological) meaning of the law. Because the law and the prophets pointed to him and he is their goal, he is able now to reveal their true meaning and so to bring them to "fulfillment." This view is consonant with the expectation that the Messiah would not only preserve the Torah but also bring out its meaning in a definitive manner (see Davies, Setting, 161-72; idem, Torah). [2]

This opinion on Matthew 5.17, is followed by:

* "The Nelson Study Bible";
* "The Jewish New Testament Commentary"; and
* "IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament"; and
* "Believer's Study Bible"; and
* "Bible Knowledge Commentary"; and
* "A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments"; and
* "King James Version Study Bible"; and
* "King James Version Commentary"; and
* "Spirit Filled Life Study Bible"; and
* "Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary"; and

But these commentaries go on to justify why Christians should no longer observing the Torah's commandments in their comments on Matthew 5.17:

* "Believer's Bible Commentary";
* "The New Bible Commentary (IVP)"; and
* "The Bible Exposition Commentary"; and
* "Word in Life Study Bible".

The comments on Matthew 5.17 from the "The Jewish New Testament Commentary" are worth quoting in full here as it illustrates my point that there are many Hebraic understandings that greatly assist in interpreting Jesus; Stern also makes some interesting comments regarding the logic behind no longer observing the Torah or Biblical Commandments:

The Hebrew word "Torah," literally "teaching, doctrine," is rendered in both the Septuagint and the New Testament by the Greek word "nomos," which means "law." Greek has had a more direct and pervasive influence on English and other modern languages than Hebrew has, and this is why in most languages one speaks of the "Law" of Moses rather than the "Teaching" of Moses. It is also part of the reason why the Torah has mistakenly come to be thought of by Christians as legalistic in character (see Ro 3:20bN, Ga 3:23bN).

In Judaism the word "Torah" may mean:

(1) Chumash (the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses); or

(2) That plus the Prophets and the Writings, i.e., the Tanakh (known by Christians as the Old Testament; see 4:4-10N); or

(3) That plus the Oral Torah, which includes the Talmud and other legal materials; or

(4) That plus all religious instruction from the rabbis, including ethical and aggadic (homiletical) materials.

Here it means the first of these, since "the Prophets" are mentioned separately.

The Prophets. The word "Prophets," capitalized (as here, 7:12, 22:40; Lk 16:16, 28, 31; 24:44; Yn 1:45, 6:45; Ac 13:15, 27, 40; 15:15; 24:14; 28:23; Ro 3:21), refers to the second of the three main parts of the Tanakh. When the Tanakh prophets as persons are referred to, the word is not capitalized; "prophet" in the singular is never capitalized. By mentioning both the Torah and the Prophets Yeshua is saying that he has not come to modify or replace God's Word, the Tanakh. Compare Lk 24:44-45.

To complete. The Greek word for "to complete" is "plêrôsai," literally, "to fill"; the usual rendering here, however, is "to fulfill." Replacement theology, which wrongly teaches that the Church has replaced the Jews as God's people (v. 5N), understands this verse wrongly in two ways.

First, Yeshua's "fulfilling" the Torah is thought to mean that it is unnecessary for people to fulfill it now. But there is no logic to the proposition that Yeshua's obeying the Torah does away with our need to obey it. In fact, Sha'ul (Paul), whose object in his letter to the Romans is to foster "the obedience that comes from trusting" in Yeshua, teaches that such trusting does not abolish Torah but confirms it (Ro 1:5, 3:31).

Second, with identical lack of logic, Yeshua's "fulfilling" the Prophets is thought to imply that no prophecies from the Tanakh remain for the Jews. But the Hebrew Bible's promises to the Jews are not abolished in the name of being "fulfilled in Yeshua." Rather, fulfillment in Yeshua is an added assurance that everything God has promised the Jews will yet come to pass (see 2C 1:20&N).

It is true that Yeshua kept the Torah perfectly and fulfilled predictions of the Prophets, but that is not the point here. Yeshua did not come to abolish but "to make full" (plêrôsai) the meaning of what the Torah and the ethical demands of the Prophets require. Thus he came to complete our understanding of the Torah and the Prophets, so that we can try more effectively to be and do what they say to be and do. Verses 18-20 enunciate three ways in which the Torah and the Prophets remain necessary, applicable and in force. The remainder of chapter 5 gives six specific cases in which Yeshua explains the fuller spiritual meaning of points in the Jewish Law. In fact, this verse states the theme and agenda of the entire Sermon on the Mount, in which Yeshua completes, makes fuller, the understanding of his talmidim concerning the Torah and the Prophets, so that they can more fully express what being God's people is all about.

The Anglican Christian writer Brigid Young-Hughes supports my understanding of this passage in these words:

" ' ... I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.' And surely 'to fulfil' means to complete, in the sense of bringing to perfection, not, as Christians have all too often interpreted it, to render obsolete; to fulfil in such a way as to perfect a foundation on which to build further." (Christianity's Jewish Heritage, West Sussex: Angel Press, 1988, p. 8) [3]

I hope this was thought provoking.

[1] The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982
[2] Hagner, Donald A.: Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 1-13. Dallas : Word, Incorporated, 2002 (Word Biblical Commentary 33A), S. 105
[3] Stern, David H.: Jewish New Testament Commentary : A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament. electronic ed. Clarksville : Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996, c1992, S. Mt 5:17